A 36 day election campaign is a major challenge for the media. Politics is not nearly as interesting as the Stanley Cup for many people, yet it requires intense coverage during the run up to the June 28th vote. Red neck radio and the Asper Empire were hard on the NDP's Jack Layton during the first week of the campaign since he was the only leader to answer questions directly and release his party's full platform (pdf 479 Kb). The leader of Canada's third party should feel flattered for attracting so much attention; they don't shoot at dead ducks!

Only one side of tax fairness led the news coverage of Jack Layton's first week. The focus was on Layton's proposal for a US style inheritance tax and the addition of a sixth income tax bracket for those earning over $250,000 per year. In 1999 there were 9,410 such people in BC; they are the ones who received a collective benefit of $200 million per year as the result of Campbell's tax cuts. The media commentators who rushed to characterize Layton's proposals for new revenue as "tax grabs" failed to report on his proposals for tax cuts. The NDP platform calls for eliminating federal income tax for those making less than $15,000 per year, and for eliminating GST on household essentials. In BC provincial sales tax is not collected on things like children's clothing, and the NDP proposal would see that principal extended to GST.

According to Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 40% of those who filed tax returns in BC in 1999 (the most recent data) had less than $15,000 in income (pdf 48Kb), yet they paid over $128 million in federal income taxes; across Canada just over $1 billion in income tax was paid by people who earned less than $15,000 per year. The people who are quick to criticize inheritance taxes on estates over $1 million are strangely silent on Layton's proposed tax cuts for 40% of the population.

Twice a week I participate in radio debates about politics, following a "cross fire" format, pitting partisan opponents against each other and letting the listeners use their own judgment. Other media outlets offer their listeners or readers "talking heads", so called experts who represent themselves as being unbiased; I enjoy listening to Palmer, Smyth, Baldry and the rest as much as anyone, but they are presenting their own opinions as politically unidentified "experts" interpreting the news. At a time of intense partisan politics, when governance of the country is at stake, people need to be exposed to intense debate between those who hold differing opinions, in order to make up their own mind. There are no "experts" who possess unique knowledge of the "truth".